Afghanistan

While Dan Seals supports many of President Obama’s initiatives, he does not support the escalation of the war in Afghanistan.   Between U.S. Forces, NATO troops, and Afghan troops we already have roughly 200,000 troops in Afghanistan to fight the much smaller Taliban force.  He is skeptical of whether 30,000 additional troops will make the difference to achieving our long term aims in Afghanistan.

To be clear, Dan is confident that our forces can and will rout the Taliban; they have done it before and they will do it again.  What’s more, Dan’s votes will reflect a firm and unwavering commitment to our soldiers’ needs and safety.  Dan is not confident, however, that the Afghan government can maintain what our soldiers are risking their lives to achieve.   That is the key to long term success in Afghanistan—having a stable and effective government that has the support of the people.  This is not the case today.  The Karzai government that runs Afghanistan is by all accounts unpopular, ineffective and corrupt.  Indeed, the Brookings Institution says that Afghanistan ranks with Somalia as having one of the weakest governments in the world.  This is why the Taliban was so readily able to return to power after our troops defeated them the last time.  Add to this a long history in Afghanistan of viewing outsiders with hostility, and what we have is the likelihood of getting dragged into a conflict that itself is constantly changing, introducing new challenges we must constantly adapt to meet, while at the same time distancing us from our more urgent mission of destroying Al Qaeda.

Dan is not alone in his view.  General Colin Powell and Senator Richard Durbin have shown skepticism about the value of adding even more troops. Powell has also expressed uncertainty regarding the clarity and focus of this surge’s mission.  House Intelligence Chairwoman and military hawk Jane Harman has correctly pointed out that we’re already spending more in Afghanistan than its GDP at a time when our national interests are exceedingly urgent. Moreover, she fears the probable counterinsurgency born of extended occupations.  Even arch conservative George Will has expressed similar views.

Dan prefers a different approach.  As the recent attacks from Yemen have demonstrated, the threat from Al Qaeda is global.  Dan thinks we need to strengthen our intelligence networks and activity and build up our Special Forces so that we have a greater ability to prevent attacks and eliminate the terrorists.  But in the long run, we have to do more than just eliminate the terrorists—we also have to combat the conditions that create them: poverty, ignorance, and repression.  This means encouraging economic growth, widespread public education, a solid commitment to justice, and responsive governments in the areas that tend to produce terrorists.  This is no easy challenge, and one that can’t be met overnight.  But if we don’t address these issues at their source, we will continue to see an endless stream of men and women who will continue to think that terrorism is the best use for their lives.

See Videos of Dan at the Media Center